The U.S. Supreme Court case Idaho, et al. v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idaho, ETC., et al., 1996 revolved around a dispute between the state of Idaho and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe over ownership and control of submerged lands within the tribe's reservation boundaries in Lake Coeur d’Alene and related waterways. The tribe filed suit seeking declaratory relief recognizing its ownership rights to these lands based on historical treaties with the federal government, while also arguing that state officials were infringing upon their sovereignty by asserting regulatory authority over these areas. However, in a complex decision involving multiple concurring opinions from justices but no clear majority opinion on all points of law involved, the Supreme Court ruled against tribal claims for broad jurisdictional immunity from suits brought by states under Eleventh Amendment protections afforded to states as sovereign entities within our federal system. This ruling effectively upheld an earlier dismissal at district court level due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because it found that such comprehensive relief sought would have had direct impact on state’s special sovereignty interests which could not be circumvented through Ex parte Young exception allowing certain suits against individual officers acting unconstitutionally.

In the dissenting opinion for Idaho, et al. v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idaho, ETC., et al., Justice Souter argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with precedent and unnecessarily limited tribal sovereignty. He contended that the Court had previously recognized tribes' rights to sue states in federal court under certain circumstances and should have done so here as well. The tribe sought a declaration of its rights to submerged lands within its reservation boundaries; this claim did not infringe on state sovereignty because it did not seek control over state lands or interfere with state governance but merely asked for recognition of pre-existing tribal rights. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on an overly broad interpretation of sovereign immunity doctrine which could undermine future legitimate claims by Indian tribes against states.